genocide law is history

This is a discussion on genocide law is history within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; They did: The international war tribunal in Den Haag. But the US won't be part of that, why?
What is ...

They did: The international war tribunal in Den Haag. But the US won't be part of that, why?

What is the U.S. objection?

The United States, which signed the statute to create the court but never ratified it, is opposed to the ICC in part because it feels the treaty does not go far enough to avoid the risk of politically motivated prosecutions. It wants immunity for countries that are not party to the ICC but still contribute troops to U.N. peacekeeping operations.

That answers that question.

The ICC will not supercede, but will complement national jurisdictions. National courts will continue to have priority in investigating and prosecuting crimes within their jurisdiction.

It's essentially a jurisdictional issue. Belgian laws shouldn't apply to another country, even if it's something as obviously wrong as genocide.

we should create one instead of bringing down a law that tries to achieve something.

You can pass a law that requires all people to have read 12 books in order to become an adult. It may be well-intentioned. The world may be a better place if everyone did that. But it's still a bad law.

It's essentially a jurisdictional issue. Belgian laws shouldn't apply to another country, even if it's something as obviously wrong as genocide.

Belgian law applies to anyone coming to Belgium. I don't see anything wrong with this. US law applies to anyone coming to the US, doesn't it ?

You can pass a law that requires all people to have read 12 books in order to become an adult. It may be well-intentioned. The world may be a better place if everyone did that. But it's still a bad law.

Why should it be bad ? If it's a law in some imaginary country, you have two options: read the books, or stay out of the country.

Originally posted by nvoigt Why should it be bad ? If it's a law in some imaginary country, you have two options: read the books, or stay out of the country.

A law like that would violate people's rights. People should not be forced to leave a country if they can't conform to its standards. This is their home. A country's system of government should serve the people living in the country, not the people that government wishes lived there. (Of course, if it was truly an imaginary country, leaving wouldn't be a problem.)

Belgian law applies to anyone coming to Belgium. I don't see anything wrong with this. US law applies to anyone coming to the US, doesn't it ?

Sorry, I was under the impression that this law allowed people to sue others who hadn't visited Belgium.

A law like that would violate people's rights. People should not be forced to leave a country if they can't conform to its standards. This is their home. A country's system of government should serve the people living in the country, not the people that government wishes lived there. (Of course, if it was truly an imaginary country, leaving wouldn't be a problem.)

In Germany, murdering people is illegal. You have two choices: not murdering people, or leaving. ( Or get caught and convicted ). I don't think this violates any rights. You don't live by our standards, you better not live here.

Sorry, I was under the impression that this law allowed people to sue others who hadn't visited Belgium.

Indeed. But how do you think will those people be prosecuted and convicted ? Belgian Foreign Legion going overseas ? If you get sued there, and enter the country, you get arrested. Pretty much the same thing the US does.

>They were held responsible for killing about 500 ppl that were in a supposed military underground facility ( happened in Iraq), and then some other things that happened to ppl during the First Gulf war...

This sort of thing is exactly what the US wants to prevent, and I think they are right to do so.

>Belgian law applies to anyone coming to Belgium. I don't see anything wrong with this. US law applies to anyone coming to the US, doesn't it ?

If it were just a matter of staying out of belgium to avoid the law, then Im sure those in the US government would just stay away. But since a new NATO headquarters is being build in Belgium, I think the US has a reason to address this law (since at some point US govt officials will have reason to visit belgium)

> [from CNN.com]
the law has since been used by human rights campaigners, political groups and others to file complaints against a series of international figures.

Thats what the US means by politically motivated.

>Why should it be bad ? If it's a law in some imaginary country, you have two options: read the books, or stay out of the country.

What about those that were already in the country. A law like that only serves the purpose to prevent certain groups (at least in environments where certain groups are much more likely not to have read 12 books) from being considered adults.

There were laws like that passed in the US after the civil war to prevent blacks from voting and hence having representation in government.

Until the US agrees to a level playing field, it is pointless debating issues like this. The US see's itself as above the level playing field, while expecting everyone else to aspire to that "same", (i.e. subordinate), level playing field.

Originally posted by nvoigt In Germany, murdering people is illegal. You have two choices: not murdering people, or leaving. ( Or get caught and convicted ). I don't think this violates any rights. You don't live by our standards, you better not live here.

A murder law doesn't violate people's rights, but some laws do. Those laws are bad laws. (Of course, what laws are bad laws are open to interpretation.) Not all standards should be enforced with a penalty of exile.

Until the US agrees to a level playing field, it is pointless debating issues like this.

So what? Tell us what's on your mind, even if it is 'pointless'.

The US see's itself as above the level playing field, while expecting everyone else to aspire to that "same", (i.e. subordinate), level playing field.

What about those that were already in the country. A law like that only serves the purpose to prevent certain groups (at least in environments where certain groups are much more likely not to have read 12 books) from being considered adults.

If the majority likes this law and considers it a good law, I don't see how it differs from having to be at least 18 to be considered an adult. To the contrary, 12 books is an achievement, not being 18 is discrimination, after all it's something you cannot change on your own, like your skin color.

A murder law doesn't violate people's rights, but some laws do. Those laws are bad laws. (Of course, what laws are bad laws are open to interpretation.) Not all standards should be enforced with a penalty of exile.

I didn't mean exile as a punishment. I meant if a law exists, you can either comply to that law ( or still go against the law and get punished, not an option from my point of view ) or stay out of that community. Example: cprogramming does not tolerate warez. If someone likes to talk about warez, he will do this elsewhere or get punished here. Thats normal.

Some laws are unjust. I don't think a law against genocide belongs to this category.

Why do you think this is?

Because the US does what any state does, trying to get the best for their citizens. However, the US simply sucks at diplomacy. And you cannot send troops into friendly countries even if you threatened to do so before ( Den Hague Tribunal ). So what is left at the moment is a bunch of ........ed of friends. And once in a while, you will need friends.

>If the majority likes this law and considers it a good law, I don't see how it differs from having to be at least 18 to be considered an adult. To the contrary, 12 books is an achievement, not being 18 is discrimination, after all it's something you cannot change on your own, like your skin color.

There is a big difference. Turning 18 will come in time, reading 12 books might not. After the US civil war, laws were passed that made it so you had to be literate and had to pay a voting tax to be able to vote, knowing good and well most blacks, newly freed slaves at the time, were illiterate and had little money. What those laws did was prevent blacks from getting representation and therefore equal rights.

There should be many more things considered in passing laws than just the majority thinking its good. And just because a law is good in principle, like the genocide law, doesnt make it a good law in practice.

There should be many more things considered in passing laws than just the majority thinking its good. And just because a law is good in principle, like the genocide law, doesnt make it a good law in practice.

Right, but if the majority thinks its a good law but when the law is used it seems that something is lacking then there should be some improvement in this law. They should improve the law so that when it is used it still remains a good law where the majority supports it.

What the Belgian government did was just ,in my opinion, lame.
They found it too hard and too time expensive to improve this law, things like this need time because you will never know what problem you wil encounter, time will tell as you use this law.

Its like writing code, you compile but somehow theres this bug in, you just dont say lets start all over again, you first start looking for the bug. And when you really really cant find the bug anywhere you might consider writing the code from scratch....